In message <20140518163140.gb27...@solar.andreasschulze.de>, Andreas Schulze wr
ites:
> Mark Andrews:
> > domain ENAME domain {0|1} [type list of included / excluded types]
> > (0 == include, 1 == exclude)
>
> Mark,
>
> I currently don't see, why ENAME will be usefull. Could you
Mark Andrews:
> domain ENAME domain {0|1} [type list of included / excluded types]
> (0 == include, 1 == exclude)
Mark,
I currently don't see, why ENAME will be usefull. Could you (or other)
clarify in which scenario ENAME would be helpfull?
Or what like to ask:
How has my pr
On 5/18/14, 1:58 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 17 maj 2014, at 13:51, Ted Lemon wrote:
It might be worth actively pushing the CDN folks to go the SRV direction.
Even if ENAME were a good idea, which is not clear to me, it's an idea that
would require significant infrastructure changes,
